3 ms·

Not to mention that the original Macintosh GUI was a blatant copy of Xerox PARC, created after Jobs and a team of developers visited the PARC research lab. I d

Not to mention that the original Macintosh GUI was a blatant copy of Xerox PARC, created after Jobs and a team of developers visited the PARC research lab. I don't blame them for this because I simply don't believe any design patents are legitimate, but the hypocrisy is astounding.

bigfudge2 14y ago
How many times. Jobs paid for the IP from Xerox. Check your facts. There probably are things Apple have stolen over they years, but this wasn't one of them.
- 1SaltwaterC 14y ago
  Probably?
- Karunamon 14y ago
  Great. It's still a copy. Whether they paid for access to it or not is irrelevant - it's still a copy of someone else's innovation.
  - JasonFruit 14y ago
    I doubt a patent attorney would consider that irrelevant, and it's not irrelevant when you're discussing corporate conduct.
    - Karunamon 14y ago
      I don't mean legally, I meant in the "Apple is soooooo innovative" sense.
      - mkr-hn 14y ago
        It seems like most Apple acolytes have conceded that point.
  - javajosh 14y ago
    Emphasis can be a powerful thing. If you see an array of amazing things (as I'm sure Jobs & Co did at PARC), and then you select a key item to emphasize and popularize, then you have, in fact, contributed value. One could say that this was Steve Jobs' first act of 'technology curation' - an act which has (successfully) been commoditized and monetized via the App Store.
- rimantas 14y ago
  And Apple added a lot to the original.
  - derleth 14y ago
    > And Apple added a lot to the original. Ah, sarcasm.
    - mung 14y ago
      you should really take a look at what they "copied"
      - derleth 14y ago
        Let's see: Windows, Icons, Menu, Pointer. Which of those were Apple's invention?
  - vacri 14y ago
    Like 'a black rectangle with rounded corners'?
- jivatmanx 14y ago
  Xerox sued, but the case was dismissed without addressing the claims, because it was filed as the wrong type of case, in the wrong court. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/24/business/most-of-xerox-s-suit-against-apple-barred.html http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/24/business/most-of-xerox-s-s... Xerox did give Apple access to PARC, but see how that allows Apple to freely use any of their IP without compensation. According to Xerox: ''The ruling does not mean Apple hasn't taken substantial portions of the Star and claimed them as their own,'' a statement issued by Xerox said. ''The court merely held, we believe erroneously, that Xerox does not have standing to present facts in support of our contention.''
  - Evbn 14y ago
    Wow, Apple even copied Xerox's non-apologies for lost lawsuits.
andybak 14y ago
"Xerox was allowed to invest in Apple in exchange for access to PARC.": http://www.quora.com/Retrocomputing/Did-Apple-need-to-license-Xerox-PARCs-GUI-technology-after-their-visit-in-December-1979-or-was-it-just-copied http://www.quora.com/Retrocomputing/Did-Apple-need-to-licens...
mung 14y ago
Yet Xerox PARC is still sitting in a basement.

bigfudge2 14y ago

How many times. Jobs paid for the IP from Xerox. Check your facts. There probably are things Apple have stolen over they years, but this wasn't one of them.

1SaltwaterC 14y ago
Probably?
Karunamon 14y ago
Great. It's still a copy. Whether they paid for access to it or not is irrelevant - it's still a copy of someone else's innovation.
- JasonFruit 14y ago
  I doubt a patent attorney would consider that irrelevant, and it's not irrelevant when you're discussing corporate conduct.
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    I don't mean legally, I meant in the "Apple is soooooo innovative" sense.
    - mkr-hn 14y ago
      It seems like most Apple acolytes have conceded that point.
- javajosh 14y ago
  Emphasis can be a powerful thing. If you see an array of amazing things (as I'm sure Jobs & Co did at PARC), and then you select a key item to emphasize and popularize, then you have, in fact, contributed value. One could say that this was Steve Jobs' first act of 'technology curation' - an act which has (successfully) been commoditized and monetized via the App Store.
rimantas 14y ago
And Apple added a lot to the original.
- derleth 14y ago
  > And Apple added a lot to the original. Ah, sarcasm.
  - mung 14y ago
    you should really take a look at what they "copied"
    - derleth 14y ago
      Let's see: Windows, Icons, Menu, Pointer. Which of those were Apple's invention?
- vacri 14y ago
  Like 'a black rectangle with rounded corners'?
jivatmanx 14y ago
Xerox sued, but the case was dismissed without addressing the claims, because it was filed as the wrong type of case, in the wrong court. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/24/business/most-of-xerox-s-suit-against-apple-barred.html http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/24/business/most-of-xerox-s-s... Xerox did give Apple access to PARC, but see how that allows Apple to freely use any of their IP without compensation. According to Xerox: ''The ruling does not mean Apple hasn't taken substantial portions of the Star and claimed them as their own,'' a statement issued by Xerox said. ''The court merely held, we believe erroneously, that Xerox does not have standing to present facts in support of our contention.''
- Evbn 14y ago
  Wow, Apple even copied Xerox's non-apologies for lost lawsuits.

andybak 14y ago

"Xerox was allowed to invest in Apple in exchange for access to PARC.": http://www.quora.com/Retrocomputing/Did-Apple-need-to-license-Xerox-PARCs-GUI-technology-after-their-visit-in-December-1979-or-was-it-just-copied http://www.quora.com/Retrocomputing/Did-Apple-need-to-licens...

mung 14y ago

Yet Xerox PARC is still sitting in a basement.